It seems even the most hardcore apologists like Kent Hovind (spelling?) accept that micro-evolution takes place. For those that don't know, micro-evolution says that an animal, for example a bird, can grow a bigger beak if the environment favors this trait. So why is it that they can't accept that say a land animal could develop wings and go from one species to a totally different looking one? It seems to logically follow through to me.
P.S. I know this is not a strictly religious question, but since the audience I seek answers from is mainly religious, I believe the topic is best suited here.
2006-09-10 02:20:03 · 7 answers · asked by Alucard 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The catholic church leaves it open for speculation, but they don't deny it either, but whatever might have happened, it was under the guidance of god (they say, not me):
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
But they have problems with it, because it undermines what their holy books tell them to believe. If these books are proven not to be right, what else is there in it that you can't trust? It makes them feel very insecure on this small world with all these questions that could come up when you start doubting the holy words.
2006-09-10 03:09:19 · answer #1 · answered by Caveman 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because they are very short sighted and do not understand how evolution really works. They will tell you that if you breed animals you will get the same animal. They don't realize that you can't control evolution, and it takes a long long LONG time for Macro-evolution to occur. They don't see that Micro-evolution is the intermediate steps that lead to Macro-evolution.
They don't think or even explore ideas they don't agree with at face value... that's what it really comes down to. In their minds there is only one book that contains any kind of truth... and we all know how silly that book is.
2006-09-10 02:29:06 · answer #2 · answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Excellent question!
Before I read it, I didn't know about the concepts of "micro-" and "macro-evolution".
Panspermia is also an interesting scenario.
I am a fan of exobiology, ie the exact science that studies how life could appear everywhere but on Earth-planet.
When exobiologists find pragmatical proofs about non-earthian life forms, many answers will rise for your question.
I believe that exobiologists will find those proofs soon. I believe it is just a question of time & of technology.
2006-09-10 02:28:50 · answer #3 · answered by Axel ∇ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most religious people have little to no understanding of science. As an example, they'll say something like "I don't believe in evolution," even though it is not a matter of faith. It's akin to saying you don't believe in the earth. It's there, right in front of you!
2006-09-10 02:28:19 · answer #4 · answered by nospamcwt 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
For the same exact reason why religious people attacked Galileo's theory that the earth revolves around the sun. They can't accept the truth because that would mean changing their beliefs.
2006-09-10 02:26:19 · answer #5 · answered by Another Nickname 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think you answered your own question. You mention the word logical. Religion has nothing to do with logic.
2006-09-10 02:27:53 · answer #6 · answered by Jabberwock 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because there is evidence for microevolution, but not for macroevolution.
You can take two dogs, and breed together the biggest and get a Great Dane; you can breed the smallest together and get chihuahuas. You can't breed two rocks together and get anything; you can't breed two dogs together and get fish. There's no evidence that anything along those lines ever happened.
2006-09-10 02:23:36 · answer #7 · answered by flyersbiblepreacher 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋